Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35758605›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2022

Defining Potentially Unprofessional Behavior on Social Media for Health Care Professionals: Mixed Methods Study.

Tea Vukušić Rukavina, Lovela Machala Poplašen, Marjeta Majer, Danko Relić, Joško Viskić, Marko Marelić

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Social media best practices for the spine care professional.North American Spine Society journal · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tea Vukušić RukavinaAndrija Štampar School of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6466-9024
Lovela Machala PoplašenAndrija Štampar School of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1375-6419
Marjeta MajerAndrija Štampar School of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5494-8719
Danko RelićAndrija Štampar School of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6208-5888
Joško ViskićDepartment of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8195-7247
Marko MarelićAndrija Štampar School of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2596-3359

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media presence among health care professionals is ubiquitous and largely beneficial for their personal and professional lives. New standards are forming in the context of e-professionalism, which are loosening the predefined older and offline terms. With these benefits also come dangers, with exposure to evaluation on all levels from peers, superiors, and the public, as witnessed in the #medbikini movement.

objectiveThe objectives of this study were to develop an improved coding scheme (SMePROF coding scheme) for the assessment of unprofessional behavior on Facebook of medical or dental students and faculty, compare reliability between coding schemes used in previous research and SMePROF coding scheme, compare gender-based differences for the assessment of the professional content on Facebook, validate the SMePROF coding scheme, and assess the level of and to characterize web-based professionalism on publicly available Facebook profiles of medical or dental students and faculty.

methodsA search was performed via a new Facebook account using a systematic probabilistic sample of students and faculty in the University of Zagreb School of Medicine and School of Dental Medicine. Each profile was subsequently assessed with regard to professionalism based on previously published criteria and compared using the SMePROF coding scheme developed for this study.

resultsIntercoder reliability increased when the SMePROF coding scheme was used for the comparison of gender-based coding results. Results showed an increase in the gender-based agreement of the final codes for the category professionalism, from 85% in the first phase to 96.2% in the second phase. Final results of the second phase showed that there was almost no difference between female and male coders for coding potentially unprofessional content for students (7/240, 2.9% vs 5/203, 2.5%) or for coding unprofessional content for students (11/240, 4.6% vs 11/203, 5.4%). Comparison of definitive results between the first and second phases indicated an understanding of web-based professionalism, with unprofessional content being very low, both for students (9/222, 4.1% vs 12/206, 5.8%) and faculty (1/25, 4% vs 0/23, 0%). For assessment of the potentially unprofessional content, we observed a 4-fold decrease, using the SMePROF rubric, for students (26/222, 11.7% to 6/206, 2.9%) and a 5-fold decrease for faculty (6/25, 24% to 1/23, 4%).

conclusionsSMePROF coding scheme for assessing professionalism of health-care professionals on Facebook is a validated and more objective instrument. This research emphasizes the role that context plays in the perception of unprofessional and potentially unprofessional content and provides insight into the existence of different sets of rules for web-based and offline interaction that marks behavior as unprofessional. The level of e-professionalism on Facebook profiles of medical or dental students and faculty available for public viewing has shown a high level of understanding of e-professionalism.

Indexed as

dental medicinee-professionalismfacultyhealth care professionalsinternetmedicineprofessionalismsocial mediasocial networkingstudents

Identifiers

PMID35758605
PMCPMC9399843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.